Speeches and Statements
The Case for a New Migration System
A speech by Liam Byrne, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, to the Local Government Association (LGA) on 6 February 2008 . The text below is as prepared.
I’m very grateful for the chance to speak at the LGA today.
When I first started to do this job, John Reid used to tell me that I should introduce myself as the immigration minister for now. 20 months later I’m not sure I can still use that line.
But the work of the last 2 years would not have been possible without you. For that I want to say thank you.
I’ve come to learn that the great advantage of being Immigration Minister is that you’re never short of advice, lots of it. Getting hold of the right advice is a little harder. But you have made that job easier.
I want to talk about winning the debate on immigration today.
It’s a debate that many of you are marshalling in your communities and I want to outline the three key pieces of the argument that I see as vital in 2008.
First, the public needs to be satisfied that its demand for a different system has been heard, has been accepted and has been acted on.
Today I tell you emphatically. The Government has got the message.
Last year I said that five foundation stones were needed – in strategy, press, technology, money and global alliances.
Each we systematically put into place. On that foundation we will in 2008 deliver the biggest shake up of our border security and immigration system in its history.
My goal therefore is as ambitious as it is urgent. There are 4 themes to our work. Protection, prevention, accountability and compassion:
To deliver a sweeping programme of border protection, learning from the world’s most advanced nations like the US, we will;
- Check fingerprints before we issue a visa
- Screen all travellers against watch-lists before they land
- Introduce a single border force to guard our ports and airports
- Introduce police-like powers for frontline staff
- And crucially, we will reintroduce the checks to count foreign nationals in and out of the country
To prevent illegal immigration we will make changes too - change that is needed because prevention is always cheaper, and safer and fairer – than cure.
And because we have obligations, not just to the British public, but to the potential victims of human trafficking and smuggling, the vulnerable victims of a global 21st century slave trade.
So we will introduce:
A points system to help British business recruit the skills it needs from abroad so we are a global hub of global talent.
Once again learning from the most effective systems in the world, in this case Australia.
But a system designed to prevent illegal immigration and attacks the causes of illegal immigration.
So we will:
Introduce big fines for employers who don’t make the checks.
And we will introduce compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals so those checks are 10 times easier than they are today.
We will welcome those newcomers who promise to work hard and play by the rules, and enrich this country culturally, economically, as many have before them.
But we will hold newcomers to account for their actions if they break the rules – whether that is overstaying their visa or breaking the law.
That means automatic deportation for those who commit a serious offence. This year we will deport more foreign prisoners than last year – and I am afraid we will build more detention centres to lift the numbers we remove.
But I believe one thing more. That we will fail if we do not reform our system so that it is more humane in its nature. So that it is compassionate.
So we ensure we honour our traditions of providing humanitarian protection to those who need our help – like the Iraqi interpreters who served shoulder to shoulder with British forces in a war-zone.
In the asylum system, fairer decisions are often faster decisions. So we will for the first time, conclude – either granting or removing –the majority of cases within 6 months.
And we will be most sensitive to the children in our care and the victims of human trafficking.
There are our goals. But what the public wants to see is us delivering on those goals.
So each and every month in 2008, the British public will hear us not talking about change. They will see us delivering it.
Last week I was able to say that we will no longer issue visas abroad without checking fingerprints first – a system delivered 3 months early and several million pounds under budget.
By day 60 this year, we will introduce big on the spot fines for employers who don’t make the right checks and employ illegal immigrants
By day 80, we will commence the introduction of our points system, so that only those Britain needs can come here to work or study.
By day 100, we will introduce a single border force and introduce our new powers for frontline staff.
By day 180 I will confirm that we are on track to deport more foreign national prisoners than last year, and by day 200, give or take a fortnight, we will activate powers for automatic deportation of foreign national prisoners.
By day 300, we will have expanded our detention capacity to boost to the number of spaces at the disposal of Agency enforcement teams, including building a new centre at Gatwick Airport
By day 330, we will be issuing compulsory ID cards to foreign nationals.
By Christmas, we will be counting in and out of Britain, the majority of foreign nationals and introducing compulsory watch-list checks on travellers from high risk places before they land – indeed in some cases, before they take off
Finally, by the end of the year we will for the first time resolve – either removing or granting – the majority of new asylum claimants inside 6 months with alternatives to detention available for children and new action on trafficking.
These are the changes that the public and you expect and I believe you want us to get on delivering them – not simply talk about them.
With these changes in place I believe that we are in a position to win a wider argument about what the benefits of migration are and what they are not.
As the M.P for an inner city constituency, I can tell you because I see with my own eyes that migration has a wider impact than simply the marketplace.
I’ve said before that migrants move faster than ministers, it is vital that we control for the good of the national interest.
Rapid changes in communities can put pressure on front line services- in education, in health and in policing and we have to listen to what the front line is telling us because sometimes the frontline sees change before it shows in the statistics.
That is why when we introduce the points based system we won’t just listen to the needs of the business community, we’ll listen to what the whole community has to say.
So alongside the MAC, the MIF brings together frontline leaders from around the country with ideas and views and evidence that will help us get the balance right.
But we must not run away from an argument about the benefits.
We need to be clear about just how migration benefits ordinary people. This argument about managing the pace of change is one of the great long wave arguments we have to win.
First, carefully controlled migration looks good for the wealth of all of us. Migration is seems can boost GDP per capita. We know that over the last decade the British economy has achieved a rare triple
Jobs are up – only three countries in the EU25 have a higher employment rate than us – all in Scandanavia
Wages are up – by an average of 3.4% a year since 1997. In fact, the OECD said last year the UK had the highest average annual real wage growth in the G7 between 2000 and 2005.
But we have combined this record with productivity up too. In the last decade we have achieved continuous productivity growth in a trend not seen in any other decade during the period for which we have data.
But what does migration deliver?
On average, foreign born workers earn more than British workers. That means they help level up, not down, average wages.
A study for the Low Pay Commission recently asked, what does migration do for local wages?
The answer?
A 1% increase in migrants as a share of the working age population led to a 0.4% increase in average native wages.
Awhile ago, I revealed that migration in 2006 was worth £6 billion to national output. Migrationwatch retorted this was only 0.15% in GDP per capita.
But remember, this is equivalent to almost half the entire contribution made by upskilling the British workforce in the five years to 2000 . Its worth having
And it would imply that since 1997 migration has boosted per capita income of natives by about 1.5% - or £300 per person
And in the long term, the impact of migration on wealth per head may be greater still. [Last year] [NIESR in full], estimated the impact from just A8 migration will be 0.27% [DN - of what??] in a decade.
Second, migration can be good for growth – and good for tax takes.
The IPPR estimates that migrants have a positive net fiscal impact. In 2003/04 it was estimated that migrants contributed 10% of government receipts and accounted for 9.1% of government expenditure.
In some sectors like financial services, our ability to attract the best talent in the world to come and work and prosper is crucial to public spending. Britain’s financial services sector today contributes 24% of corporation tax receipts in 2006/07. It is difficult to see how that could have happened without immigration.
Third, migration is good for the long term productivity of the economy – for the wealth of the country in the long term and for wages because we know there is almost a one to one relationship between the growth in productivity and the growth in wages
A wider labour market improves the matching of workers to opportunities. By bringing complementary skills and talents, migrants will make natives more productive and more prosperous.
And by underpinning essential services that the economy needs, migrants leave other workers free to concentrate on what they do best, thus raising productivity indirectly.
And we should remember that the level of vacancies in the British labour market has been around or over 600,000 since records began in 2001, and today there are currently over 680,000 vacancies.
So we should be confident in arguing the economic case for the carefully controlled migration – and remember that some forms of migration – like the right of British citizens to marry whoever on earth they like; or honouring our obligations to give international protection to those fleeing torture, persecution or worse, are frankly rather hard to put a price on.
But third, I do not believe that even if we reform policing, as we will, and even if we win the case about benefits, which we can, we will not win the argument unless we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the system is fundamentally fair.
For that reason I believe we have to win an emotional argument about migration until we change not only the way that newcomers earn their way, but earn their stay.
That’s why last year I proposed - with Ruth Kelly – the idea of earned citizenship. I believe that as the Prime Minister said in November, we have to put our values at the heart of a new phase of immigration reform beginning when we publish proposals for simplifying our immigration legislation later this year.
If you look back over the last forty years of immigration legislation, too often we have been reacting – whether it was to decolonisation in the 1960s, or clearing up the mess of the asylum system from the Conservatives during the late 1990s.
Now is the time, as the number of people seeking asylum falls to the lowest level since 1992, that we look systematically at how people move from being a newcomer to becoming a citizen.
So I look forward to Lord Goldsmith’s report because I am sure there are implications for newcomers and I think the public is with us.
If you’re ever in doubt whether British people are still interested in big issues, start a debate about immigration.
You can pick your venue – a pub, down the shops, or at the school gate. Your audience won’t need much warming up.
The public has called for big changes to Britain’s immigration system.
They want big changes to protect Britain’s borders and to prevent illegal immigration in the first place.
They insist we hold newcomers to account if they break the rules, deporting rule breakers where necessary.
But they want a compassionate system too, which honours the promises we must keep to those who need our protection - like the Iraqi interpreters or children or victims of trafficking.
We have got the message. This year sees the biggest ever shake-up to Britain’s border security. Every month, the public will be able to see progress on our ten point plan for 2008.
But we want to go further still. Because I don’t think it’s enough to change the way newcomers earn their right to come. We have to look again at how people earn the right to stay.
This is a big question. So over the last three months, I’ve traveled all over Britain talking to hundreds of people about just what do newcomers need to do these says to become part of the family in modern Britain?
I have to say that what I’ve heard was British reason at its finest. Sophisticated, intelligent views and a profound sense of fairness and tolerance for a Britain in which we live and let live and actually try a bit harder to be a bit more welcoming, and a bit less shy about saying hello.
Britain is not anti-foreigner. We are not a nation of Alf Garnetts.
In fact, we want a different kind of welcome in the future. Bluntly, people are up for doing a little more themselves – if government or council would do a little less.
Everywhere I went I heard people say ‘we bend over backwards’ to be accommodating. And what people mean is they don’t want us to sacrifice national traditions because we’re worried about giving offence.
We hold our habits dear. We’d rather do more personally to offer a hand of friendship or a friendly word about anything and everything from the Queen to queuing.
It’s funny. Abroad, we’re renowned for our cool reserve. But at home, what I heard was a country that wants to do more to make the British welcome warm and personal.
In every place I stopped I heard people who wanted to volunteer to be a ‘buddy’ or a ‘mentor’ for someone who had a lot to give, but who might be feeling lost.
But earning a stay in Britain is not a one way street.
On the contrary. I heard a clear and simple sense of what we’re looking for from newcomers. And it’s not in fact over the top. But the deal has to work both ways. So what do we want to see?
Top of the list – by a mile – was command of the English language.
It didn’t matter whether people raised their voices in Estuary English like me, or Scouse, Geordie or Scots. Speaking English is seen as first base; the basic thing that newcomers must master if they want to be part of Britain.
And people have lots of ideas about how we can deliver the help. Whether it’s less translation, or employers doing their bit for staff, or British people volunteering to be ‘buddies’, or schools helping new kids and their parents. What ever it takes, English was simply seen as the key to the kind of integrated society we want to live in.
Second – and not far behind – we want newcomers to pay their taxes just like we do. But we’re not in favour of special rights for the rich.
I asked people whether successful migrants – like high earning footballers or surgeons – should get ahead faster. I got a pretty blunt answer. Treat everyone the same. Just make sure no-one’s dodging their dues.
Third, and most basic of all, was obeying the rule of law. British law. All of us have the odd moan about British justice. About judges and decisions we don’t like.
But what ever the rule book says, we want to see it followed – with penalties for those that don’t. So when an offence is serious, I’m afraid we do want to show newcomers the door.
These are the ideas – along with scores of others – that I heard all over Britain – that we need now to put to good use.
So we’ll be bringing forward new laws to modernize our out-dated immigration system before the summer. I hope you’ll see these values – our values – centre-stage
